> You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
scientific research of this particular type has proved to be unreliable enough that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Fwiw my anecdote was probably caused by weed not LSD, my friend was taking frequent doses of a "legal" research LSD precursor he found in europe and didn't have problems until later when he stopped and smoked weed more. Idk if the LSD precursor accelerated his problems or not and I don't care to speculate.
> Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
I did not imply that psychedelics should be illegal, if it were up to me I'd legalize all drugs.
My issue is with people calling these chemicals "harmless", that very stance I believe is harmful. Any drug should be treated with respect. Weed is not harmless and the right edible or strong enough joint will fuck you up for days. People abuse MDMA regularly and come down with serotonin syndrome or fuck up their brain by not waiting 3 months or more. Ketamine is often abused too and that's not a fun ride either.
I've heard that SV types take LSD micro doses and I've tried it, I got a more cheerful day out of it but the next day I didn't have any motivation to do anything and didn't get much pleasure out of the whole day. So your mileage may vary, be careful when doing this stuff, do proper research and make sure you have enough free time with no responsibilities in the near future when doing them because you can't predict your specific reaction.
How many well recorded and observed anecdotes are required before it becomes recorded data worthy of being considered a replication of a poorly designed and unreplicated academic study? Do I just gotta format it in two columns like it's a high school newsletter and pray nobody reads the dozens of references I threw in there but never actually used beyond roughly associating my own thoughts with ones someone else already had?
>You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
Yes, if it has the potential to ruin my life and the life of people I care about, as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around them that these drugs are extremely harmful to a subset of the population.
> these drugs are extremely harmful to a subset of the population.
I pay attention.
Decades of observing.
Some negative effects (the paranoia induced by repeatedly taking magic mushrooms for instance).
I too have heard horror stories, I just have not witnessed them.
But then I prefer to pay attention to the scientific research by people like David Nutt
You do what you want based on your own prejudices and if you must your bigotry. But places like thos that influence public policy statements like:
"as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around" as an argument against scientific research simply does not belong here
You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
The "studies that usually fail to replicate" are the ones supporting a LSD inducing schizophrenia.
Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy